Hi
I m having issues in ubuntu 9.04 enterprise server.
I have enabled XDMCP and using Thin Clients to connect to server.
While in XDMCP connection from thin clients my office application(open office3.1) works very slow. Browsing is fine. Gnome version is 2.0.
can anyone suggest how can i make this work.

Instructions works as advertised. Took less than a hour from start to finish. 1/3 of that was downloading, and installing cygwin. I do have many years of Unix/Linux experense. However, this was a very clear path to making X avaible to Windows with very little effort.

First off great article...people that nit-pick should write their own article if they think they can do a better job.

For anyone out there using kdm I noticed that I didn't have to edit the /etc/X11/xdm/* files at all since kdm is what manages the connections the only files need editing are in /etc/kde2/kdm

I setup a debian woody laptop (P-133Mhz, 32MB, 1GB disk) to run KDE off the KDM server (AMD K6-400Mhz, 340MB RAM, 20GB disk) and the performance is excellent on my home network of about 8 machines. I was just about to toss the laptop into the dumpster but thanks to Linux and wonderful folks like the author the laptop will live a little while longer. The monitor resolution of 800x600 and 8bit colors does suck however! :)

Is anyone aware of a project that would allow you to use old windows/citrix terminals with LTSP? For example, this one (http://www.wyse.com/Service/discontd/winterm/wint2000/2315.htm) can be found for $12.00 My church is looking at starting a computer lab for local students, and if I could get these working with LTSP life would be very good.
TIA

I am currently planning moving from a Windows Terminal/Citrix Metaframe setup to Linux running XDMCP. The main drawback is that there seems to be no suitable replacement for Metaframe for Linux. I see Citrix have the Presentation Server for Unix, but it only supports the commercial unixes. Tips on suitable solutions?

>> I am currently planning moving from a Windows Terminal/Citrix Metaframe setup to Linux running XDMCP. The main drawback is that there seems to be no suitable replacement for Metaframe for Linux. I see Citrix have the Presentation Server for Unix, but it only supports the commercial unixes. Tips on suitable solutions?

At the end of my tests, I found NX, a protocol for highly efficient data compression, itself a kind of XDMCP (AFAIK). There is a free version on SourceForge, but browse at www.nomachine.org where a commercial version is available (along with free trial downloads).

Though this is claimed to be as efficient as Citrix' ICA (or even more), I didn't have the time to test it (in fact, I had trouble in finding a library upon which the free trial version depended).

This would be my best bet as an alternative solution; have in mind, though, that the bigest problem is server memory consumption, around 50 megabytes per connected user!

I've been using XDMCP for quite a few years, although I have looked at Citrix it just seems too much for our small shop. What does the Metaframe PS do exactly? SF.net does have a few non-active projects, however I don't think there is an opensource alternative...

Unless I'm confusing terminology, Metaframe PS is just what is commonly called Metraframe, which is similar to VNC in concept. That is, a "virtual desktop" can be kept running on a server and be displayed on a user terminal.

But while VNC is somewhat clunky, and practically unusable in Windows due to processor overhead, Citrix' Metaframe integrates well with the underlying Windows OS and gives a very light and smooth (but costly) experience.

From the article: Want to get some use out of your early 90s vintage PC, the one barely powerful enough to run Windows 3.1? . . . .

For Mac, consider installing XDarwin . . . .

From the XDarwin site: XDarwin is an implementation of the window server for version 11 of the X window system on the Darwin operating system, underlying Mac OS X.

Maybe the author should tell us exactly which early 90's vintage PC's he's managed to install OS X to? This sort of oversight really detracts from an otherwise valuable article like this. The author is either severely exaggerating certain capabilities, or has simply not done his homework. The bottom line is as follows: this solution is not going to work for any of the legacy Macs he seems to want to include among target hardware for XDMCP. By giving the impression that it will, the article risks alienating people from Linux by leading them into a project doomed to failure. This does not help the OSS movement, damages the reputation of Linux and could waste alot of someone's valuable time. A call for a greater sense of responsibility in writing articles about Linux and its capabilities. More realism, less starry-eyed idealism. Otherwise - for legacy x86 owners - a helpful article and good collection of links. Thanks. But please be more careful in the future.

Sorry, but I stand by my criticism. This author needs to clearly distinguish between the modern Macs that can run XDarwin and the legacy/budget network talk the article starts off with. Not having done that, he presents a confusing picture that could easily give the false impression this project is suitable for legacy Macs. That impression is going to lead someone wanting to put into practice the otherwise helpful tips in this article down a dead end, waste alot of that person's time, and risk giving Linux a bad name. The solution to this sort of oversight? Like I said, less starry-eyed idealism about Linux and its capabilities, more realism about what it really can do and which hardware it really is suitable for. If it won't run on legacy Macs in an article that starts off talking about the virtues of XDMCP on legacy systems, that point needs to be made crystal clear up front. Not doing so will not help - but could rather hurt - the Linux cause. Case rested.

Actually, the author's unstated advice is that all you need to participate in this remote-execution XWindow-terminal metaphor is an X11 CLIENT. He did a poor job of stressing that point, alas.

Many exist for Mac OS, Windows, etc. For the Macintosh, eXodus and others will work just fine.

You do NOT need to be running a UNIX to run X11 clients. In fact, I used to do remote X sessions from my 8500/120 running OS 8.6 to both Linux 2.2 (years ago) *and* MachTenX running locally on my 8500.

Nope, what you want on your desktop machine is a X11 _SERVER_, not a client. A X11 client is an application, like "xterm", "xemacs", "gnome-panel", and so on. (After all, it is the application that connects to a display server, not the other way around).

To make the confusion complete:
- You need a X11 SERVER on your application client machine (the one you are directly interacting with)
- You will be running X11 CLIENTS (xterm, etc) from your application server machine.

In response to the complaint: "Actually, the author's unstated advice is that all you need to participate in this remote-execution XWindow-terminal metaphor is an X11 CLIENT. He did a poor job of stressing that point, alas."

Again, I think there has simply been a misunderstanding on the part of the reader. An X11 "client" is actually called an X server even if it is running on an isolated un-networked computer. I'm not sure how much clearer one can be than this snippet from the article:

"This means the X terminal must have some operating system with a configured X server installed. In case of Linux, Windows or Macintosh, an implementation of XFree86 is available free of charge."

You provide good advice on the availability of other X servers for Macs, though. Thanks.

The LTS project uses this procedure to establish an X session. However, it goes beyond, providing remote boot capabilities, so you don't need to install the operating system at each station. With one configuration, using dhcp or bootp on the server, all you need is to attach the "thin" station on the network and the machine will be booted and the X login prompt will appear to you.